search

Friday, April 20, 2012

Comments on reads 4/20 III

FP: Note on the Eisner affair: I already mentioned in a previous post my disgust with the Israeli TV repeating the clip of the hit by Eisner on the anarchist half a dozen times, one after another, non-stop and without a good reason. One could not help but conclude an intention to create a hostile emotion against the officer.

I have just watched the Friday’s news program where several commenters talked about the event and the rushed punishment of the officer by the Chief of Staff: there was not one comment that was not hostile to the officer. They could have invited, for example, Knesset member Danny Danon (Likud) [who]has it right. Now, if only he could convince the Prime Minister.

Attempts to explain the rationality behind the Zionist dream of building a state in our historic homeland will simply not work with those who are attempting infiltrate Israel’s borders only to attack us from within.

It is time that we recognize the reality we are faced with. The State of Israel is at war. This war is being fought on a completely different battlefield than in the past, one in which the word de-legitimization has replaced bullets and provocative actions such as the flotilla have replaced tanks and fighter planes.

Nevertheless, we must not be confused by this new type of warfare. Just as we did not hesitate to confront to violent acts perpetuated by our enemies in the past, we cannot waver in our resolve against this new threat.

Would we allow a suicide bomber into our country so that we could attempt a “dialogue” with him? Of course not.

Here, too, we must not be naïve and bury our heads in the sand. While the “delegitimization battle” may be sometimes confusing and seem less dangerous then actual acts of war, the implications of capitulation will be just as dire for Israel’s future as a military loss would be.

TO COMBAT this new form of warfare we must be just as creative now as we have been in the past on the traditional battlefield.

We must immediately implement a three-pronged approach to keeping these terrorists out of Israel: prevent, arrest and deport.

...

The militant activist from Denmark who attacked the IDF officer should have never been in a position to do so. He never should have been allowed entry into Israel. Once he was allowed in, he should have been arrested and tried at the first sign of illegal activity. Even now, it is unacceptable that he is walking free in our country after violently attacking an officer. He must be arrested and deported immediately.

Neither has anybody considered the consequences of throwing under the bus the best of the IDF, who put their life on the line to defend Israel, in order to appease a hostile world, which will only invite more demonization and existential pressure.

This is the objectivity and balance of Israeli media: most of it is leftist while the public has rejected the discredited left. Disgusting and another aspect of self-destructive nature of Israel and Israel will not survive this way.

In his interview with The Forward, senior Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook explained that his organization would not honor a peace treaty signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and reiterated, yet again, the group's rejection of Israel

…

Wait... but what about this?

FP: This is precisely Arafat’s phased strategy: get Israel to agree to a Palestinian state without (1) recognition of a Jewish state (2) termination of conflict and (3)renouncement of the right of return. If Israel falls for this—and given the record in face of world pressure, I do not rule this out—consider the consequences of all the political acts the Palestinians will be able to engage in that they cannot now because they are not a state e.g. the ICC won’t be able to reject their complaints anymore. If you liked the world’s pressure on Israel to date, you’ll love what’ll do with a Palestinian state in a war with Israel.

The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl addresses those who refuse to see Palestinian leaders as actors with some responsibility for the consequences of their actions:

Abbas’s defenders will claim that Netanyahu’s right-wing government, and the Obama administration’s inability to influence it, left him with few options. That’s a canard. In fact, Abbas has never seriously tested the Israeli leader. He could have done that by fully committing to the negotiations the Obama administration tried to organize or to those sponsored by Jordan’s King Abdullah this year. That would have forced Netanyahu to reveal his terms for Palestinian statehood — and brought real pressure to bear on him if they were unreasonable.

Instead, Abbas has repeatedly backed away from serious diplomacy, citing as an excuse Israeli settlement construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank — something that did not stop him from participating in negotiations with previous Israeli governments. He embarked on his unity-U.N.-intifada strategy on the premise that it would bring about Palestinian statehood without the need for negotiations with Netanyahu.

And, not for the first time, Mahmoud Abbas succeeded only in delaying Palestinian statehood — and weakening his own cause.

Diehl misses a critical point: Abbas knows that serious negotiations would also test him on the three issues enumerated above, and failure is likely to assign blame to him too. Given the Blackmailer Paradox game that the Palestinian side has so successfully played to date, with Israel making constant concessions to appease a hostile world without any demands for reciprocation from or blame on him, it makes much more sense for Abbas to continue to eschew negotiations and rely on the world to get him a state without any concessions on his part.

And reality proves him right: Netanyahu has already given up on issue (1) above just for Abbas to negotiate. Stay tuned (2) and (3), particularly after Obama is reelected.